4.7 Article

Additive manufacturing of an Fe-Cr-Ni-Al maraging stainless steel: Microstructure evolution, heat treatment, and strengthening mechanisms

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2020.139470

关键词

Laser-powder bed fusion (LPBF); Precipitation; Maraging stainless steel CX; Strengthening mechanism; Hierarchical microstructure

资金

  1. New Brunswick Innovation Foundation [NBIFRIF2017-071]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [NSERC-RGPIN-2016-04221]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Additive manufacturing of a low carbon Fe-Cr-Ni-Al maraging stainless steel (with the brand name CX) through the laser-powder bed fusion (LPBF) process is studied. Since the strength of this material is enhanced through precipitation hardening, the effect of different heat treatment cycles on the hardness and microstructure is assessed. The LPBF-CX is heat treated through a standard heat treatment procedure consisted of austenitization at 900 degrees C for 1 h followed by air cooling and aging at 530 degrees C for 3 h. Moreover, the effect of aging treatment (with no austenitization) on the as-built sample is studied. The microstructure of the as-built, austenitized-aged, and aged samples is studied using multiscale electron microscopy techniques. The as-built LPBF-CX consists of the typical lath martensitic structure and minor retained austenite. The martensite laths are featured by high dislocation density, with no evidence of precipitates. Austenitization-aging treatment shows a detrimental effect on the strength of LPBF-CX, due to martensite laths growth and retardation of precipitates evolution. Aging of the as-built LPBF-CX results in strength enhancement due to the evolution of nanometric and coherent beta-NiAl precipitates, and martensite laths refinement. Moreover, the pre-existing dislocation networks play a key role in the strength of the aged material. The strength enhancement of the aged LPBF-CX is investigated through the fundamentals of alloy hardening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据